[DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 30 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 1- cr-0 02 05 -BAE-GRS- 2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIC HAEL PRINGLE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 29 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-11307 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 1 of 5Mi ch ael Pri ng le ap pe al s h is ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e o f 30 m on th s af te r pl ead in g g ui lt y , pu rs ua ntto a pl ea ag reem en t, t o t he ch arg e o f co ns pi rin g t o co m m itfin an ci al aidfrau d. Pri ng le arg ue s (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt erredby ado pt in g th e p ro ba ti on off

ic er’s err on eo us de te rm in at io n o f hi s cr im in al hi st ory sco re, (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto fol lo w th e p ro pe r pr oc edur e fo r im po si ng anup ward
se nt en ci ng dep artur e, an d (3 ) hi s ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . After r ev ie w, we affi rm Pri ng le ’s sen te nc e. I. Pri ng le fir stco nt en ds hi s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e PSI s ta te d h e h ad15 , rat he r th an 13 , cri m in al hi st ory po in ts . Becau se Pri ng le fai le d t o ra is e th is arg um en t b efo re t he di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew fo r pl ai n e rro r. Und er t hi s s ta nd ard , we can m ak e co rrec ti on s o nl y if (1 ) th ere i s an erro r, (2 ) th at is pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 39 8 F.3 d 1 29 1, 1 29 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . A defe nd an t fa il s t o m eethi s b ur de n o n t he th irdfact orwhen “ th e eff ectof a n e rro r on th e res ul t i n t he di st ric t co urt i s un cert ai n o r in de te rm in at e.” Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 30 1. Inde te rm in in g P rin gl e’s se nt en ce, t he di stric t co urt n ev er m en ti on ed Pri ng le ’s cri m in al hi st ory po in ts or i nd ic at edth atitwas b as in g s en te nc in g o n t ha t
nu m be r. Rat he r, th e d is tri ctco urt re co un te d t he len gt hy his to ry of P rin gl e’s 2 Case: 12-11307 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 2 of 5cri m in al co nv ic ti on s. Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh Pri ng le ha d o nl y 13 cri m in al hi st ory po in ts , Prin gl e st il l wo ul d h av e earne d t he same crim in al hi st ory cat eg ory (VI) ba se d o n t ha t n um

be r. Se e U.S.S.G. Ch. 5 , Pt. A. Becaus e itis at m os t u nc ert ai n as to whet he r th e m is st at em en t o f th e cri m in al hi st ory po in ts affe ct edth e d is tri ct
co urt’s s en te nc in g d eci si on , Prin gl e can no t s ho w th e err or affe ct edhi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Rod

ri gu ez , 39 8 F .3dat 1 30 1. II. Pri ng le ne xtco nt en ds hi s s en te nc e was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto fol lo w th e p ro pe r pr oc edur e fo r an up wardde pa rtu re fro m hi s g ui de li ne s ra ng e o f 12 to 18 m on th s. Be cau se Pri ng le fai le d t o ra is e th is arg um en t b efo re t he di stric t co urt, we ag ai n re vi ew fo r pl ai n e rro r. Rod ri gu ez , 39 8 F.3 d a t 1 29 8. Whe n u nc ert ai nt y

ex is ts as t o wh et he r th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d ade pa rtu re orva ria nc e, we co ns id er: (1) whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt re fere nc eda pa rti cu la r gu id el in es de pa rtu re p ro vi si on , and(2) whet he r th e co urt b as edit s d eci si on on a be li ef t ha t t he gu id el in es were n otad equa te . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. K ap or de lis , 56 9 F.3 d 1 29 1, 1 31 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . In Ka po rd el is , we hel d t ha t ev en th ou gh th e di st ric t co urt s ta te d i t was gra nt in g a“ m ot io n fo r an up wardde pa rtu re,” wh ere t he
co urt d idno t ci te a sp eci fic gu id el in e d ep artur e an d i ts rat io na le was b as edon th e 3 Case: 12-11307 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 3 of 5§ 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d afin di ng th atth e g ui de li ne s wer e in ad equa te , itactua ll y

gr an te d ava ria nc e. Ka

po rd el is , 56 9 F .3dat 1 31 6. Co nt rary to Pr in gl e’s co nt en ti on s, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t i m po se an up wardde pa rtu re, b utin st eadim po se d a n upwa rdva ria nc e b as edon th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Id

. In i m po si ng Pri ng le ’s sen te nc e, th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y cal cu la te d Pri ng le ’s adv is ory

gu id el in e ran ge , fou nditdi d n otsu ffi ci en tl y ad dr es s t he § 35 53 (a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s, an d i m po se d asen te nc e o ut si de th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge wit ho utcit in g asp eci fic gu id el in e p ro vi si on . Thes e fac to rs in di cat e th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d avaria nc e, no t a d ep artur e. Thu s, the co urt d id
no t p la in ly err in fai li ng to fol lo w th e p ro pe r pr oc edur e fo r im po si ng anup ward
se nt en ci ng de pa rtu re. III. Pri ng le ’s fin al arg um en t i s t ha t h is 30 m on th sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . If th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie s a v ari an ce, the reas on ab le ne ss of t he
va ria nc e is ass es se d i n l ig htof t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s an d t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , with due de fere nc e g iv en to th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on th atth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, o n awho le , just ify the ex te ntof t he va ria nc e. Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7) . The p art y ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e

4 Case: 12-11307 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 4 of 5bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g u nr eas on ab le ne ss . Uni te d Sta te s v. To me , 61 1 F .3d13 71 ,

13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Pri ng le ha s n otest ab li sh edhi s ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . The s en te nc e was ba se d e xp res sl y on th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Th e se nt en ce was als o wel l b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um of 6 0 m on th s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Gon za le

z , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Mo reo ve r, th e co urt ga ve su ffi ci en t re as on s t o s up po rt t he ex te ntof t he va ria nc e, in cl ud in g i ts ob se rv at io ns th atPri ng le ha d ahi st ory of f ai li ng to co m

pl y wit h p ro ba ti on , and th atPri ng le ha d b eenun de te rredfro m cri m in al co nduc t b y

hi s p rev io us sen te nc es . The di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i m po si ng a 30 -m on th sen te nc e. AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 12-11307 Date Filed: 11/29/2012 Page: 5 of 5